Hippeis, not Hippies

[Paullus Scipio]

Howard/Ghostmojo wrote:

This always comes down to what the composition of a Spartan army was. In many cases the Lakedaimonian-led army was an amalgam of other troops. Rarely was a Spartan-led army dominated numerically by actual Spartiate (or even Spartan) troops.

….quite right, Howard – and therein lies the weakness of the ‘statistical’ approach of my earlier post. You have put your finger straight on it. Most ‘Spartan” armies were in fact ‘Allied Peloponnesian’ armies, with often only a ‘Mora’ or two of true Spartan troops, and sometimes just led by ‘Homioi’ Officers….

If we look at battles that involved a majority of Spartans, we have Plataea ( all six Morai ) – but there they didn’t engage any other hoplites, only lighter armed Persians.

First Mantinea is really the only time when we see ‘just’ the Spartan army in Action. All six Morai, plus a seventh of Brasideoi/Neodamodeis – just under 8,000 Spartans in all, with the youngest and oldest left ‘out of battle’, plus 2-3,000 Peloponnesian allies, mainly Tegeans. The enemy coalition was of a similar number, and the battle was nearly lost by Agis’ last minute manoeuvres not being carried out in time. Both right wings routed their foes, but the Spartan right-wing/centre retained its cohesion, swung through 90 degrees and swept across the battlefield whilst their foes broke up – drill, discipline and cohesion prevailed and turned what was heading for a loss into a narrow win.

At the Nemea, some 6,000 Lakedaemonian Hoplites ( 5 Morai plus Hippeis) and 600 cavalry were present, with 7-,10,000 allies, 300 Cretan mercenary archers, and 400 Elian slingers. As at Mantinea, a ‘right hook’ won the day, this time against a larger enemy.

Agesilaus at Coronea only had One and a Half Morai, and so doesn’t count as ‘majority Spartan’.

Sphacteria, Lecheum and Tegyra were all heavy defeats of purely Spartan Morai

Then we have Leuktra ( 4 Morai plus Hippeis – almost 5,000 Spartans plus allies ) – a major disastrous defeat.

Next, the “Tearless Battle” at the fork in the Eutresia/Melea road probably involved 3-4,500 Spartans – perhaps as many as four and a half Morai/nine Lochoi – the enemy broke immediately and suffered heavy losses to some 2,000 Celtic and Iberian mercenaries sent from Syracuse.

Second Mantinea ( 3-4,000 Spartans in an army of 20,000 aprox ) was in any event a draw.

So taking only ‘Spartan majority’ battles we have two wins ( First Mantinea and Nemea), maybe three if you count the “Tearless Victory” non-battle; against four pretty disastrous losses ( Sphacteria, Lecheum, Tegyra and Leuktra).

Taking only major ‘pitched battles’ we have Mantinea and Leuktra – a Spartan win/loss ratio of 50-50 !!

My main point is that despite constant drill and training (which of course others - notably Thebes and Makedon) later concentrated on; the very nature of the Spartan rearing - i.e. the agoge had to count for something. The Spartiate wasn't just well-trained, drilled, equipped and disciplined. He was devoted to the art of warfare, hardship, and standing his ground. Their failings were rarely due to lack of courage or vigour, discipline or skill - usually other factors (like facing an enemy who didn't want to fight in a conventional manner).

Our sources tell us that individually, a Spartan soldier was no better or worse than any other Hoplite ( see Demaratus’ comments ante for example) – they were not ‘Martial Artists’ in any sense of the word. Indeed their failure to win any Olympic wrestling events in Classical times was due to the fact that they refused to employ, and frowned upon, teachers, believing matches should be won by courage and not technique. They didn’t enter the’ Pankration’ because it could involve ‘tapping out’ – yielding. The ‘agoge’ was not martially oriented – I notice that ‘unarmed combat’ and ‘super weapons proficiency’ are never mentioned - but rather focused on obedience and discipline and drill. The Spartan ‘Art of Warfare’ did not involve producing the proverbial “Team of Champions” but rather “The Champion Team” which is superior every time. It was ‘in Phalanx’ that the Spartans were so formidable.

There was a reluctance to innovate even after the lessons of Iphikrates, Epaminondas and Phillip II.

I don’t think this can be true….it is likely that in their ‘Great days’ in the sixth century, when they conquered Messenia, their ‘professionalism’ meant they were the innovators when it came to Phalanx warfare – let it not be forgotten they were the only Greek poleis to completely conquer another state ( Messenia), although that occurred as the Phalanx was evolving, and of course their Military System – from Homioi to Helots – preserved Laconia inviolate for hundreds of years.

Nor were they as militarily ‘conservative’ as many commentators make out. The very next campaigning season after Sphacteria, we learn that Sparta hired Thracian ‘peltasts’, and we often hear of their increasing use under Spartan leadership – Brasidas, Derkylidas and Agesilaus to name but three. That same year (424 BC) they hired several hundred Cretan bowmen, and raised a force of 400 cavalry of their own. ( They weren’t oblivious to the advantages of cavalry, obtaining them earlier from their Allies of more ‘horsey’ peoples such as Boeotians, Locrians and Phocians whenever they could – having learnt about cvalry in the Plataea campaign). By 394 they were also hiring specialist slingers from the Magriainians,Litvians and Amphidolians. They were also the first Greeks to use Celtic and Iberian mercenaries.Let us not forget too that Agis and Cleomenes in the third century, in the age of Alexander's successors were prepared to radically alter the very fabric of Spartan society, and also revolutionise the army by arming 'in the macedonian fashion' ( admittedly being the last Greek state to do so - understandable given it couldn't be done without the radical social reform.)

However, I'm lost for a term that describes the Spartiate soldier who was so superior to other fighting men (who hadn't devoted every hour since they were 7 to military pursuits) if we can't describe them as elite. What was the point of all that decades-long training if any other state could match her standard troops with their own (who didn't devote their lives accordingly)?

…but that’s just it – individually, Spartan soldiers weren’t particularly superior – as our sources tell us. The point was that without all the hours of drill, and the discipline and obedience to orders ( which even then broke down on occasion under the stress of combat – First Mantinea and Sphacteria and Lecheum being cases in point), they were NOT better than other armies, except that they were full-time soldiers versus part-time militia..
It was the degree of training as units which was the secret of their success, which was recognised and emulated by other states raising full-time soldiers of their own. Not to mention the rise of the mercenary, that other full-time soldier ( whose disadvantage was that they couldn’t get together ‘en masse’ to drill, generally being sent off as ‘penny packet’ garrisons.)
In fact, just how much time the ‘Homioi’ spent training, and how often ‘lochoi’, ‘Morai’ and the Army got together to drill is debateable……

Modern soldiers too follow the full-time military life, often for twenty years or more, but they are not ( except for a very few) in any way "elite"....





Polinik/Aleksander wrote:

All of the "elite",fearsome and (almost)invincible reputation,which was justified,and had strong support in system of the city, was earned in times before and at Persian wars...

That is indeed arguably correct, since Sparta’s ‘Great Days’ of conquest etc lay in the seventh and sixth centuries, before any history was written….. see above.

The latter post earthquake Spartans frankly did not do anything to earn the "elite" reputation.

…also an arguable proposition, since their hegemony in the Peloponnese was under threat from that time on, and they eventually lost it…….